Surface Detail wrote:They don't measure anything. It is then up to a GPS receiver to work out its own position from those signals.

This *is* a direct measurement. GPS has always worked this way and is a great way to get an accurate read on position, specifically via triangulation, and the more satellites involved the more accurate. Jason-2 suffers from trying to measure something a vast distance away. I don't buy your story.

What do you mean, you don't buy my story? What story? I've just given a basic outline of the way in which satellite altimetry works and how this differs from GPS location. What don't you understand?

I think it's pretty obvious. He doesn't buy your story of how these satellite systems work. I don't buy your story either.

How do you think they work, then?

Actually, the Wikipedia article on GPS is a fairly complete description, even though it's written in a confusing manner. It fails to mention, for example, that the satellites accuracy of position is a horizontal accuracy or that survey grade receivers are great at repeatable positions, but are no better at establishing initial position. The article also fails to mention why altitude measurement sucks (it's a little like trying to find the position of where a tire contacts the road).

I, too, have seen margins of error presented without any of the raw data. This alone discards any conclusions based on the missing data.

*sigh*

Not the "raw data" crap.

Raw data does not show accurate trends. As many deniers like to state, using raw data would not account for effects like the Urban Heat Island effect or El Nino's and La Nina's (though the latter can and does show up even when the data is modified) as well as basic noise from normal, natural changes in yearly weather patterns. This is why climatologists use anomalous temperature events rather than actual temperatures, as they've proven to be more accurate at showing trends.

But they are still required to present, for scrutiny, the margin of error for all data they use, as well as to provide the data

No, they are not. More to the point, if you're reading IPCC reports to learn and gauge the accuracy of climate change science, you're using the wrong source. The IPCC is not scientific. It's a governmental policy advisor board that attempts to explain the accepted science to government leaders around the world. They do not follow scientific rigor in their reports, but rather attempt to explain as simply as possible what the complex scientific literature says. It's like Bill Nye trying to explain evolution: he's going to do a good job explaining it in simple terms, but doing so is going to lose some of the nuance in the actual science. As such, the IPCC got some stuff arguably wrong and also had some information lost in translation, which was an acceptable loss considering its goals.

The fact is, only people who don't have any skepticism make any scientific claim (both for climate change and against it) based on IPCC reports.

We just went over this. You can use that excuse for not having a "confidence level" about which no one cares.

Can you state this again? I'm not clear on what you're saying.

You do NOT get to avoid publicly declaring what YOU consider to be an acceptable margin of error.

Why not? I'm not educated enough to know. I'm aware of this. Any claim by me about what would be an acceptable margin of error would have no authoritative merit. You might as well ask me how I would fly an aircraft. The absurdity between the two is equal.

It forces you be consistent.

How?

You can't, on the one hand, claim that you want a small margin of error and then hold up data that does not support your own standard.

How would you define a "small margin of error"? More to the point, why would you assume all data needs to have the same range of error?

All I require, as a person with no legitimate statistical analysis background, is a stated and reputable margin of error with a statement on what that margin of error means with regards to the data and what other similar datasets say comparatively. If I have that information, even without any formal training, I can make a reasonably good assessment of what the data says and its reliability.

Similarly you cannot accept a wide margin of error just to get your data accepted and then claim noise to be a "trend."

Well, regardless as to whether there's a wide margin of error or not, "noise" definitely cannot be claimed as a trend. Basic statistical analysis that even I understand says that anomalous readings (what I understand in statistical parlance is generally referred to as "noise) outside of the statistical norm should not and must not be considered when analyzing data.

In other words, if you won't at least state publicly what YOU consider to be an acceptable margin of error then you are effectively telling the world to dismiss any conclusions coming from you.

Only if you have no understanding of logical reasoning or intellectual honesty.

I'm being intellectually honest when I state I don't have the slightest freakin' clue what an acceptable margin of error should be. If I stated something, it would be random and completely dishonest.

The fact you want me to make shit up and lie only shows me how far you're willing to go to be right.

So, I'll ask you again, for something like an average global temperature, what do you consider an acceptable margin of error? +/-1 degree Celsius? +/-0.5 degrees Celsius? What?

And I'll state again, I don't have any clue. I'll also state again that the stated margin of error is 0.1-0.05*C according to NASA, and considering that has been reached based on rigorous experimentation and that they state it clearly, I'm willing to accept that's accurate, and that, considering there's no known dataset with better margins of error, it's the best dataset we have.

Review: Global Climate Change: A PrimerThis one-page document contains no science and no mention of AGW.

Fair enough. I'll retract that article.

Notes on the temporal and spatial scales of climatic changesThis document requires a $40 fee. Send me a pm with just the science from this article.

Atmospheric water vapor flux, bifurcation of the thermohaline circulation, and climate changeThis document requires a $40 fee. Send me a pm with just the science from this article.

Ground temperature histories in eastern and central Canada from geothermal measurements: evidence of climatic changeI don't have access. Send me a pm with just the science from this article.

What does "the science" entail in this context?
Edited on 03-09-2016 06:53

Ocean level is not changing perceptibly. The Maldives blow a hole through your assertions. We do not even have the means to be certain of the precise sea level.

So do you not accept the satellite and tidal gauge data?

What degree of accuracy do you think the satellites have?

What degree of accuracy do you think the tidal guages have for the water level of the whole world's oceans?

What degree of accuracy do you think is possible to measure day length to? If this is very good do you think that we could measure the change in mass distribution of ice from the poles to water at the equator with a high precision? Would this cost as much as a satellite? Would the director of the research group get the same sallery?

The Jason-2 satellite is capable of measuring sea levels to an accuracy of 2.5 cm. By using data from this satellite and its predecessors, scientists have determined that the average global sea level is currently rising at a rate of 3.4 +/- 0.4 mm per year.

We can indeed measure time to a very high precision and, if sea level were the only factor affecting the Earth's rotation speed, we could possibly use this information to determine the change in sea level. However, this isn't the case. Changes in the Earth's rotation speed are primarily due to tidal effects and changes in the structure of the Earth resulting from such things as earthquakes, continental drift and post glacial rebound. These effects completely swamp the effect of the change in sea level.

1. How do you get from an instrument with an accuracy of 2.5cm to a result with a precision of 0.1mm??? That's 1/250th of the precision of the device you are using to measure the sea's altitude.

2. If the effect of earth movements is so great that it swamps the effect of sea level rise on the rotation of the earth why is it not doing the same for sea level it's self? Could it be that changes to the sea bead can lift or lower the sea level??

Skepticism, a mind dragging burden but it stops you being fooled as easily.

Ocean level is not changing perceptibly. The Maldives blow a hole through your assertions. We do not even have the means to be certain of the precise sea level.

So do you not accept the satellite and tidal gauge data?

What degree of accuracy do you think the satellites have?

What degree of accuracy do you think the tidal guages have for the water level of the whole world's oceans?

What degree of accuracy do you think is possible to measure day length to? If this is very good do you think that we could measure the change in mass distribution of ice from the poles to water at the equator with a high precision? Would this cost as much as a satellite? Would the director of the research group get the same sallery?

Surveying equipment can measure within a few inches depending on the quality of the receiver. And satellites use much more sophisticated equipment. When you are using atomic clocks to measure how long it takes for a signal to travel at the speed of light you can get pretty damn accurate.

Yes an the very darn accurate measurement of how much mass is moving from the poles to the equator has the result of..... not happening.

Ocean level is not changing perceptibly. The Maldives blow a hole through your assertions. We do not even have the means to be certain of the precise sea level.

So do you not accept the satellite and tidal gauge data?

What degree of accuracy do you think the satellites have?

What degree of accuracy do you think the tidal guages have for the water level of the whole world's oceans?

What degree of accuracy do you think is possible to measure day length to? If this is very good do you think that we could measure the change in mass distribution of ice from the poles to water at the equator with a high precision? Would this cost as much as a satellite? Would the director of the research group get the same sallery?

The Jason-2 satellite is capable of measuring sea levels to an accuracy of 2.5 cm. By using data from this satellite and its predecessors, scientists have determined that the average global sea level is currently rising at a rate of 3.4 +/- 0.4 mm per year.

We can indeed measure time to a very high precision and, if sea level were the only factor affecting the Earth's rotation speed, we could possibly use this information to determine the change in sea level. However, this isn't the case. Changes in the Earth's rotation speed are primarily due to tidal effects and changes in the structure of the Earth resulting from such things as earthquakes, continental drift and post glacial rebound. These effects completely swamp the effect of the change in sea level.

1. How do you get from an instrument with an accuracy of 2.5cm to a result with a precision of 0.1mm??? That's 1/250th of the precision of the device you are using to measure the sea's altitude.

2. If the effect of earth movements is so great that it swamps the effect of sea level rise on the rotation of the earth why is it not doing the same for sea level it's self? Could it be that changes to the sea bead can lift or lower the sea level??

Skepticism, a mind dragging burden but it stops you being fooled as easily.

1. The trend, based on measurements with a accuracy of +/- 2.5 cm taken over the last few decades, has a precision of +/- 0.4 mm/year. I never mentioned a precision of 0.1 mm.

2. The fact that Effect A and Effect B both contribute to Effect C doesn't necessarily imply that Effect A also contributes to Effect B. It's not obvious, for example, why the sideways motion of the continents should affect sea level in the same way that it might affect the Earth's rotation. While changes in the sea bed may affect sea levels locally, I'd have thought these would average out globally rather than give the observed upward trend.

These are good questions; scepticism and honest discussion are an essential part of science. It is denial, as in refusal to consider evidence, that is not compatible with science.

You're right. Let's agree that you think raw data is unimportant and to not speak of this to you ever again.

In climatological studies, it is unimportant. I explained exactly why it is unimportant.

But feel free to ignore my arguments in favour of burying your head in the sand. /s

Stupid response. Of course YOU are the authority on what YOU consider an acceptable margin of error for an average global temperature..

*facepalm*

Lets try this again:

I am not knowledgeable enough to state an acceptable margin of error for data. For that matter, I don't even buy that all data needs to fit within a general margin of error to be acceptable.

Once again, this is like you asking me, a person with no pilot training or experience, how I would fly a plane. I don't know, nor would I ever pretend to know. But I am more than willing to get into a plane because I trust that the airline industry where I live makes sure pilots that are flying planes do know how to do so competently, just as I'm more than willing to listen to climatologists on climate science.
Edited on 04-09-2016 08:46

You're right. Let's agree that you think raw data is unimportant and to not speak of this to you ever again.

In climatological studies, it is unimportant. I explained exactly why it is unimportant.

But feel free to ignore my arguments in favour of burying your head in the sand. /s

Stupid response. Of course YOU are the authority on what YOU consider an acceptable margin of error for an average global temperature..

*facepalm*

Lets try this again:

I am not knowledgeable enough to state an acceptable margin of error for data. For that matter, I don't even buy that all data needs to fit within a general margin of error to be acceptable.

Once again, this is like you asking me, a person with no pilot training or experience, how I would fly a plane. I don't know, nor would I ever pretend to know. But I am more than willing to get into a plane because I trust that the airline industry where I live makes sure pilots that are flying planes do know how to do so competently, just as I'm more than willing to listen to climatologists on climate science.

If you judge the competency of a pilot and the soundness of an aircraft the same way you judge the competency of a climatologist,

you......will......die.

However, you can learn to fly a plane. It's not that hard. All it takes is time and a normal amount of hand-eye-foot coordination.

You can learn how to use statistical math too. It's not that hard. All it takes is time and the humbleness to go out and learn it. You will find many fascinating things on the way there, including why random numbers are used in statistics.

Then you will discover why the margin of error is a calculable number, why it is an essential number for describing any data summary, and why it is not possible to calculate a global temperature with the instrumentation we have.

You're right. Let's agree that you think raw data is unimportant and to not speak of this to you ever again.

In climatological studies, it is unimportant. I explained exactly why it is unimportant.

But feel free to ignore my arguments in favour of burying your head in the sand. /s

Stupid response. Of course YOU are the authority on what YOU consider an acceptable margin of error for an average global temperature..

*facepalm*

Lets try this again:

I am not knowledgeable enough to state an acceptable margin of error for data. For that matter, I don't even buy that all data needs to fit within a general margin of error to be acceptable.

Once again, this is like you asking me, a person with no pilot training or experience, how I would fly a plane. I don't know, nor would I ever pretend to know. But I am more than willing to get into a plane because I trust that the airline industry where I live makes sure pilots that are flying planes do know how to do so competently, just as I'm more than willing to listen to climatologists on climate science.

If you judge the competency of a pilot and the soundness of an aircraft the same way you judge the competency of a climatologist,

you......will......die.

However, you can learn to fly a plane. It's not that hard. All it takes is time and a normal amount of hand-eye-foot coordination.

You can learn how to use statistical math too. It's not that hard. All it takes is time and the humbleness to go out and learn it. You will find many fascinating things on the way there, including why random numbers are used in statistics.

Then you will discover why the margin of error is a calculable number, why it is an essential number for describing any data summary, and why it is not possible to calculate a global temperature with the instrumentation we have.

If anyone let you anywhere near an aircraft with attitude that you show on here they want shooting, your not a pilot Walter Mitty. I bet my short time in the Air training cadets gave me far more real idea of what it takes to be a pilot then you have. And you invoke Humbleness, now I know your trolling.

Ocean level is not changing perceptibly. The Maldives blow a hole through your assertions. We do not even have the means to be certain of the precise sea level.

So do you not accept the satellite and tidal gauge data?

What degree of accuracy do you think the satellites have?

What degree of accuracy do you think the tidal guages have for the water level of the whole world's oceans?

What degree of accuracy do you think is possible to measure day length to? If this is very good do you think that we could measure the change in mass distribution of ice from the poles to water at the equator with a high precision? Would this cost as much as a satellite? Would the director of the research group get the same sallery?

The Jason-2 satellite is capable of measuring sea levels to an accuracy of 2.5 cm. By using data from this satellite and its predecessors, scientists have determined that the average global sea level is currently rising at a rate of 3.4 +/- 0.4 mm per year.

We can indeed measure time to a very high precision and, if sea level were the only factor affecting the Earth's rotation speed, we could possibly use this information to determine the change in sea level. However, this isn't the case. Changes in the Earth's rotation speed are primarily due to tidal effects and changes in the structure of the Earth resulting from such things as earthquakes, continental drift and post glacial rebound. These effects completely swamp the effect of the change in sea level.

1. How do you get from an instrument with an accuracy of 2.5cm to a result with a precision of 0.1mm??? That's 1/250th of the precision of the device you are using to measure the sea's altitude.

2. If the effect of earth movements is so great that it swamps the effect of sea level rise on the rotation of the earth why is it not doing the same for sea level it's self? Could it be that changes to the sea bead can lift or lower the sea level??

Skepticism, a mind dragging burden but it stops you being fooled as easily.

1. The trend, based on measurements with a accuracy of +/- 2.5 cm taken over the last few decades, has a precision of +/- 0.4 mm/year. I never mentioned a precision of 0.1 mm.

2. The fact that Effect A and Effect B both contribute to Effect C doesn't necessarily imply that Effect A also contributes to Effect B. It's not obvious, for example, why the sideways motion of the continents should affect sea level in the same way that it might affect the Earth's rotation. While changes in the sea bed may affect sea levels locally, I'd have thought these would average out globally rather than give the observed upward trend.

These are good questions; scepticism and honest discussion are an essential part of science. It is denial, as in refusal to consider evidence, that is not compatible with science.

Appreciated.

1. OK, I misread it but how does an instrument with an accuracy of 2.5 cm, 25mm, result in data with an accuracy of 0.4mm??

If I measure a pipe with my tape measure and it's 150mm diameter doing the same process again 100 times will not increase my accuracy to get to the result that can be obtained by a single micrometer measurement of 151.68mm.

2. Sideways movement of the continents does not effect dayy length. It's tghe up and down that causes the movement of mass into or away from the center of rotation. Also this would be very easy to accout for. Trivial to model.

Day length is a very quick and easy method of measuring the movement of mass from the poles to the rest of the world. It's not used because it give the unwanted result and has no need of massive budgets and the five figure sallery that goes with managing such a budget.

Into the Night wrote:Then you will discover why the margin of error is a calculable number, why it is an essential number for describing any data summary, and why it is not possible to calculate a global temperature with the instrumentation we have.

The assumption used in all statistics (that I have know/understood) is that the error of the measurement (or what ever) away from the actual real figure is random and distributed on a bell curve.

I take issue with this. I will give a simple example;

When I build a roof the process of attaching the roof lathes, the small pieces of wood which run horizontally and have the tiles placed onto them, involves measuring that they are the same distance appart all the way along the roof.

If you get it wrong it will look very odd from the ground.

The way you measure the position of these lathes is that you put your fist one on and then measure, say 12cm, to the next. Then from your initial first one you measure 24cm to the third. If you were to measure it from the second one you will end up with waves in your tiles.

When you reach across to the joist right of your knee you will measure your 12cm and make an error of (say) +5mm. This is OK it will not be noticable. The one further to the right will have it's own different error of (say) -4mm.

When you do the next row up you will make the same errors at the same place so you will have +10mm and -8mm.

By the time you are at you 20th row the whole roof will be similar to the waves on a beach and will make people think they have drunk too much or been sliped LSD.

The point is that the instrument that measures to 2.5cm accuracy will have almost all of it's measurements at the same wrongness, say +2.2cm. The bell shaped distribution will be narrower than you expect but from this point. Thus you cannot increase the accuracy of the data by averaging the errors.

When you recalibrate the instrument or whatever you are likely to bias the data in the same direction you did last time and end up with a result that is even further away from the real. Unlucky.

An accuracy of 2.5cm is useless for measuring the rate of sea level change over a period of less than 30 years or so. +/-2.5cm being a 50mm range.

Ocean level is not changing perceptibly. The Maldives blow a hole through your assertions. We do not even have the means to be certain of the precise sea level.

So do you not accept the satellite and tidal gauge data?

What degree of accuracy do you think the satellites have?

What degree of accuracy do you think the tidal guages have for the water level of the whole world's oceans?

What degree of accuracy do you think is possible to measure day length to? If this is very good do you think that we could measure the change in mass distribution of ice from the poles to water at the equator with a high precision? Would this cost as much as a satellite? Would the director of the research group get the same sallery?

The Jason-2 satellite is capable of measuring sea levels to an accuracy of 2.5 cm. By using data from this satellite and its predecessors, scientists have determined that the average global sea level is currently rising at a rate of 3.4 +/- 0.4 mm per year.

We can indeed measure time to a very high precision and, if sea level were the only factor affecting the Earth's rotation speed, we could possibly use this information to determine the change in sea level. However, this isn't the case. Changes in the Earth's rotation speed are primarily due to tidal effects and changes in the structure of the Earth resulting from such things as earthquakes, continental drift and post glacial rebound. These effects completely swamp the effect of the change in sea level.

1. How do you get from an instrument with an accuracy of 2.5cm to a result with a precision of 0.1mm??? That's 1/250th of the precision of the device you are using to measure the sea's altitude.

2. If the effect of earth movements is so great that it swamps the effect of sea level rise on the rotation of the earth why is it not doing the same for sea level it's self? Could it be that changes to the sea bead can lift or lower the sea level??

Skepticism, a mind dragging burden but it stops you being fooled as easily.

1. The trend, based on measurements with a accuracy of +/- 2.5 cm taken over the last few decades, has a precision of +/- 0.4 mm/year. I never mentioned a precision of 0.1 mm.

2. The fact that Effect A and Effect B both contribute to Effect C doesn't necessarily imply that Effect A also contributes to Effect B. It's not obvious, for example, why the sideways motion of the continents should affect sea level in the same way that it might affect the Earth's rotation. While changes in the sea bed may affect sea levels locally, I'd have thought these would average out globally rather than give the observed upward trend.

These are good questions; scepticism and honest discussion are an essential part of science. It is denial, as in refusal to consider evidence, that is not compatible with science.

Appreciated.

1. OK, I misread it but how does an instrument with an accuracy of 2.5 cm, 25mm, result in data with an accuracy of 0.4mm??

If I measure a pipe with my tape measure and it's 150mm diameter doing the same process again 100 times will not increase my accuracy to get to the result that can be obtained by a single micrometer measurement of 151.68mm.

2. Sideways movement of the continents does not effect dayy length. It's tghe up and down that causes the movement of mass into or away from the center of rotation. Also this would be very easy to accout for. Trivial to model.

Day length is a very quick and easy method of measuring the movement of mass from the poles to the rest of the world. It's not used because it give the unwanted result and has no need of massive budgets and the five figure sallery that goes with managing such a budget.

1. Not 0.4 mm, but 0.4 mm / year. It's a rate of change of distance, not a distance, so it makes no sense to compare it with a distance (2.5 cm).

Consider this example. One day, I measure the height of a tree to be 10 m +/- 1 m. Then, 20 years later, I measure the height of the tree again to to 20 m +/1 m. What is the rate of growth of the tree?

If my measurements are spot on, then 10 m in 20 years = 0.5 m/year. Taking measuring errors into account, the highest possible rate would be 12 m in 20 years = 0.6 m/year. The lowest possible rate would be 8 m in 20 years = 0.4 m/year.

The rate of growth of the tree is therefore 0.5 +/- 0.1 m/year. A measuring error of 1 m gives an error in the growth rate over 20 years of 0.1 m/year.

2. Sideways movement of continents is effectively the same thing as sideways movements of ice and water. If a continent moves away from a pole, it will have the same effect as ice at the pole melting into water that spreads away from the pole and raises sea levels.

If you judge the competency of a pilot and the soundness of an aircraft the same way you judge the competency of a climatologist,

you......will......die.

Statistical analysis of the facts say otherwise: I'm very unlikely to die in a commercial air crash.

But regardless, you've completely misconstrued the analogy. Regardless of whether the above is correct (and, again, it's not), I'm still no more qualified to fly an airplane than I am to state any reasonable assertion as to whether a statistical margin of error is too high, even on an individual basis, let alone suggest there's one single margin of error where it is always too high regardless of the circumstances.

However, you can learn to fly a plane. It's not that hard. All it takes is time and a normal amount of hand-eye-foot coordination.

You can learn how to use statistical math too. It's not that hard. All it takes is time and the humbleness to go out and learn it. You will find many fascinating things on the way there, including why random numbers are used in statistics.

Sure, but I don't have time to learn that. I have too many other things that I'm interested in learning and doing. The fact is, there's not enough time for anyone to learn everything, let alone learn for themselves. We rely on others, at least somewhat, to provide information for us to consider, and we have methods of determining the reliability of that information.

Then you will discover why the margin of error is a calculable number, why it is an essential number for describing any data summary, and why it is not possible to calculate a global temperature with the instrumentation we have.

Unless you assert a grand conspiracy of a whole field of study made up of thousands of people around the world, you cannot possibly defend the assertion at the end of this paragraph. Not only is it possible to calculate a margin of error, but it's done regularly.

Of course, the grand irony here is that you seem to believe your assertion should be taken above those thousands of people who do more than just assert things, but actually publish their claims and the experiments they conduct to defend them to be critiqued by their peers. And that's even before noting that their claims, even without all that additional work, are still much more reasoned than yours.

The rest of the context from IBdaMann's quote:

"Raw data does not show accurate trends. As many deniers like to state, using raw data would not account for effects like the Urban Heat Island effect or El Nino's and La Nina's (though the latter can and does show up even when the data is modified) as well as basic noise from normal, natural changes in yearly weather patterns. This is why climatologists use anomalous temperature events rather than actual temperatures, as they've proven to be more accurate at showing trends."

If you judge the competency of a pilot and the soundness of an aircraft the same way you judge the competency of a climatologist,

you......will......die.

Statistical analysis of the facts say otherwise: I'm very unlikely to die in a commercial air crash.

You have one thing working in your favor.

You fly U.S. airlines.

The FAA and the NTSB take their job seriously. Most pilots in this country are pretty skilled as well and have a right to be proud of it. The maintenance crews are also well trained. Boeing also has a solid claim of pride on the equipment they manufacture.

That doesn't happen so well in other countries. Yeah it's still Boeing aircraft (do you trust flying on an Airbus?) but the maintenance sucks, the equipment is older, and the pilots are lousier.

Leafsdude wrote:But regardless, you've completely misconstrued the analogy. Regardless of whether the above is correct (and, again, it's not), I'm still no more qualified to fly an airplane than I am to state any reasonable assertion as to whether a statistical margin of error is too high, even on an individual basis, let alone suggest there's one single margin of error where it is always too high regardless of the circumstances.

Which is to admit that you're guessing.

Leafsdude wrote:

However, you can learn to fly a plane. It's not that hard. All it takes is time and a normal amount of hand-eye-foot coordination.

You can learn how to use statistical math too. It's not that hard. All it takes is time and the humbleness to go out and learn it. You will find many fascinating things on the way there, including why random numbers are used in statistics.

Sure, but I don't have time to learn that. I have too many other things that I'm interested in learning and doing. The fact is, there's not enough time for anyone to learn everything, let alone learn for themselves. We rely on others, at least somewhat, to provide information for us to consider, and we have methods of determining the reliability of that information.

If you don't know statistical math, you have no method of determining the reliability of the information. You don't have the required tools. You have no idea if someone is feeding you BS or not. Unlike aircraft and pilots, most people that throw statistics around are BSi-ing their way through an argument.

Leafsdude wrote:

Then you will discover why the margin of error is a calculable number, why it is an essential number for describing any data summary, and why it is not possible to calculate a global temperature with the instrumentation we have.

Unless you assert a grand conspiracy of a whole field of study made up of thousands of people around the world, you cannot possibly defend the assertion at the end of this paragraph. Not only is it possible to calculate a margin of error, but it's done regularly.

No grand conspiracy required. Just a small one. Governments and what drives them.

I do not blame a lot of scientists for stating what they do, they don't get grant money unless they toe the government line.

There are also a lot of deluded scientists, that don't realize they are basing their work on a circular argument. Many of these believe, like you, that global warming exists and simply go from there, never questioning the original argument.

Evolution theory has the same problem.

Scientists are people, just like you and me. Like most people, they each have their own religion, political viewpoint, and get tripped up on chasing a field based on a circular argument.It's not a conspiracy, it's not paying attention.

Between the government funding and the fact that scientists are people, you get a fair number of them that make the global warming claim, even when they don't want to.

However, fortunately, consensus has no place in science. All it takes is ONE falsification of a theory to blow it away completely. That only needs to come from ONE source. It does not take a consensus to destroy a theory.

Global Warming is not a scientific theory because there is no way to measure the temperature of the globe, so it is not falsifiable. It is also not a theory because it changes other theories in science without describing how those other theories must be modified or destroyed to accommodate it. It is a circular argument. It begins with no source predicate. This violates the requirement of any scientific theory to avoid fallacy.

BTW, conspiracies DO exist. Most often they run under the flag of some political organization.

Ocean level is not changing perceptibly. The Maldives blow a hole through your assertions. We do not even have the means to be certain of the precise sea level.

So do you not accept the satellite and tidal gauge data?

What degree of accuracy do you think the satellites have?

What degree of accuracy do you think the tidal guages have for the water level of the whole world's oceans?

What degree of accuracy do you think is possible to measure day length to? If this is very good do you think that we could measure the change in mass distribution of ice from the poles to water at the equator with a high precision? Would this cost as much as a satellite? Would the director of the research group get the same sallery?

The Jason-2 satellite is capable of measuring sea levels to an accuracy of 2.5 cm. By using data from this satellite and its predecessors, scientists have determined that the average global sea level is currently rising at a rate of 3.4 +/- 0.4 mm per year.

We can indeed measure time to a very high precision and, if sea level were the only factor affecting the Earth's rotation speed, we could possibly use this information to determine the change in sea level. However, this isn't the case. Changes in the Earth's rotation speed are primarily due to tidal effects and changes in the structure of the Earth resulting from such things as earthquakes, continental drift and post glacial rebound. These effects completely swamp the effect of the change in sea level.

1. How do you get from an instrument with an accuracy of 2.5cm to a result with a precision of 0.1mm??? That's 1/250th of the precision of the device you are using to measure the sea's altitude.

2. If the effect of earth movements is so great that it swamps the effect of sea level rise on the rotation of the earth why is it not doing the same for sea level it's self? Could it be that changes to the sea bead can lift or lower the sea level??

Skepticism, a mind dragging burden but it stops you being fooled as easily.

1. The trend, based on measurements with a accuracy of +/- 2.5 cm taken over the last few decades, has a precision of +/- 0.4 mm/year. I never mentioned a precision of 0.1 mm.

2. The fact that Effect A and Effect B both contribute to Effect C doesn't necessarily imply that Effect A also contributes to Effect B. It's not obvious, for example, why the sideways motion of the continents should affect sea level in the same way that it might affect the Earth's rotation. While changes in the sea bed may affect sea levels locally, I'd have thought these would average out globally rather than give the observed upward trend.

These are good questions; scepticism and honest discussion are an essential part of science. It is denial, as in refusal to consider evidence, that is not compatible with science.

Appreciated.

1. OK, I misread it but how does an instrument with an accuracy of 2.5 cm, 25mm, result in data with an accuracy of 0.4mm??

If I measure a pipe with my tape measure and it's 150mm diameter doing the same process again 100 times will not increase my accuracy to get to the result that can be obtained by a single micrometer measurement of 151.68mm.

2. Sideways movement of the continents does not effect dayy length. It's tghe up and down that causes the movement of mass into or away from the center of rotation. Also this would be very easy to accout for. Trivial to model.

Day length is a very quick and easy method of measuring the movement of mass from the poles to the rest of the world. It's not used because it give the unwanted result and has no need of massive budgets and the five figure sallery that goes with managing such a budget.

1. Not 0.4 mm, but 0.4 mm / year. It's a rate of change of distance, not a distance, so it makes no sense to compare it with a distance (2.5 cm).

Consider this example. One day, I measure the height of a tree to be 10 m +/- 1 m. Then, 20 years later, I measure the height of the tree again to to 20 m +/1 m. What is the rate of growth of the tree?

If my measurements are spot on, then 10 m in 20 years = 0.5 m/year. Taking measuring errors into account, the highest possible rate would be 12 m in 20 years = 0.6 m/year. The lowest possible rate would be 8 m in 20 years = 0.4 m/year.

The rate of growth of the tree is therefore 0.5 +/- 0.1 m/year. A measuring error of 1 m gives an error in the growth rate over 20 years of 0.1 m/year.

Yes, but how long have we had satellites doing this? Is the increase in sea level more or less than 5cm over that time? If not then the result is within the range of error of the instruments doing the measuring. A zero result. Not to say that this is saying that it is not happening but that it's too small to measure this way.

2. Sideways movement of continents is effectively the same thing as sideways movements of ice and water. If a continent moves away from a pole, it will have the same effect as ice at the pole melting into water that spreads away from the pole and raises sea levels.

Yes but a sideways movement of a continent of 2cm is nothing compared to a movement of 6,000 km from pole to equator, and that is the distance away from the axis of rotation. The continents are moving too slow to be significant players in this and in any case can easily be modeled.

Into the Night wrote:The FAA and the NTSB take their job seriously. Most pilots in this country are pretty skilled as well and have a right to be proud of it. The maintenance crews are also well trained. Boeing also has a solid claim of pride on the equipment they manufacture.

That doesn't happen so well in other countries. Yeah it's still Boeing aircraft (do you trust flying on an Airbus?) but the maintenance sucks, the equipment is older, and the pilots are lousier.

Yet the statistics still say it's incredibly safe. 2017 saw 10 deaths on aircraft from crashes, all being flight crew on non-passenger flights. Even in the 90s, you'd have to travel 2 billion km to reach the average distance traveled per passenger fatality worldwide.

Into the Night wrote:Which is to admit that you're guessing.

Define what a "guess" is.

Into the Night wrote:If you don't know statistical math, you have no method of determining the reliability of the information. You don't have the required tools. You have no idea if someone is feeding you BS or not. Unlike aircraft and pilots, most people that throw statistics around are BSi-ing their way through an argument.

Do you believe it's reasonable to assume everyone is "BS-ing" their way through earning science degrees, conducting experiments, publishing technical papers and having the result of those papers repeated consistently? Or even the majority of people? Is it not, based on Occum's Razor, much more complex to assume that it is BS (or a conspiracy, or whatever) instead of assuming they're accurate?

Into the Night wrote:No grand conspiracy required. Just a small one. Governments and what drives them.

How small are we talking exactly? Thousands of people? Millions? How many people are involved in governments right now? Over the last 30 years? Looking to get involved in the future? And how many are involved accumulating and publishing the scientific data? That's at least another couple thousand there.

And there's definitely a notable percentage of that group that reject and/or question the science, and the narrative of those people are definitely the louder one getting out to the public, based on the average acceptance of climate science in the general populous.

If it is a government conspiracy, it's one of the worst ones in the history of conspiracies.

Into the Night wrote:I do not blame a lot of scientists for stating what they do, they don't get grant money unless they toe the government line.

This is complete BS. People like Eigil Friis-Christensen, Henrik Svensmark, Roy Spencer, Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas and so on, have all gotten government grants to publish papers that are skeptical of climate change. Seriously, read the acknowledgements on some of their papers. You'll find most thank government-funded schools and programs for their monetary support in publishing their papers, because government grants are not given based on published results.

Into the Night wrote:There are also a lot of deluded scientists, that don't realize they are basing their work on a circular argument. Many of these believe, like you, that global warming exists and simply go from there, never questioning the original argument.

Which circular argument, exactly?

Into the Night wrote:Evolution theory has the same problem.

What problem is that?

Into the Night wrote:Scientists are people, just like you and me. Like most people, they each have their own religion, political viewpoint, and get tripped up on chasing a field based on a circular argument.

That's why I don't trust scientists. I trust the public, peer-reviewed papers published in respected journals and the data therein that has been replicated consistently showing a singular set of conclusions that encompass all of it.

Into the Night wrote:It's not a conspiracy, it's not paying attention.

No, it's a conspiracy.

Into the Night wrote:Between the government funding and the fact that scientists are people, you get a fair number of them that make the global warming claim, even when they don't want to.

Into the Night wrote:However, fortunately, consensus has no place in science. All it takes is ONE falsification of a theory to blow it away completely. That only needs to come from ONE source. It does not take a consensus to destroy a theory.

Again, science is repeatable. It doesn't need one source. It needs to have at least two, and preferably more, with the same results. Otherwise, how can you tell the difference between coincidental and legitimate results?

But yes, it only takes one set of data points that is confirmed to be accurate to prove climate science false. However, it is also true that, after almost 150 years of data collecting, assuming that data point is ever going to be found becomes unreasonable.

Into the Night wrote:Global Warming is not a scientific theory because there is no way to measure the temperature of the globe, so it is not falsifiable.

Oh, right, you're that guy. You do know the concept of concordant data, right? The fact is, numerous data sources are used to create a temperature record that all independently correlate, all with causal factors that explain how they can show climate data. The amount of things that had to go wrong for such significant correlations to occur is completely unreasonable to believe.

Into the Night wrote:It is also not a theory because it changes other theories in science without describing how those other theories must be modified or destroyed to accommodate it.

Such as...?

Into the Night wrote:BTW, conspiracies DO exist. Most often they run under the flag of some political organization.

Mmm, no, actually. Most conspiracies are between two people. Few involve more than a handful, and most of those are found out because people are notoriously bad at keeping secrets.

PS. I now remember why I stopped posting here before. Absolutely none of this has anything to do with climate science. This is misdirection with philosophy of science crap that pretty much is based on rejecting basic concepts of rational skepticism all so that well-established scientific concepts and theories can be rejected out of hand, regardless of what is provided to support it.
Edited on 11-12-2018 00:30

Oh, right, you're that guy. You do know the concept of concordant data, right? The fact is, numerous data sources are used to create a temperature record that all independently correlate, all with causal factors that explain how they can show climate data. The amount of things that had to go wrong for such significant correlations to occur is completely unreasonable to believe.

But what sort accuracy do these proxy records bring to the calculations, must be some margin for error, +/- 10 degrees? Since our threat level, only a couple of degrees, so well under the margin of error. The causal chain is long, and mostly circumstantial, lot of 'IFs'. Just because something is possible, doesn't alway make it so. It's fine for talking about, but isn't hard data.

Into the Night wrote:If you don't know statistical math, you have no method of determining the reliability of the information. You don't have the required tools. You have no idea if someone is feeding you BS or not. Unlike aircraft and pilots, most people that throw statistics around are BSi-ing their way through an argument.

Do you believe it's reasonable to assume everyone is "BS-ing" their way through earning science degrees, conducting experiments, publishing technical papers and having the result of those papers repeated consistently? Or even the majority of people? Is it not, based on Occum's Razor, much more complex to assume that it is BS (or a conspiracy, or whatever) instead of assuming they're accurate?

Occam's Razor does not substitute for data.

Leafsdude wrote:

Into the Night wrote:No grand conspiracy required. Just a small one. Governments and what drives them.

How small are we talking exactly? Thousands of people?

Hundreds, and with millions of followers.

Leafsdude wrote:Over the last 30 years? Looking to get involved in the future? And how many are involved accumulating and publishing the scientific data?

None. There is no such thing as 'scientific' data. There is only data. There is no record of the temperature of the Earth.

Leafsdude wrote:And there's definitely a notable percentage of that group that reject and/or question the science,

There is no such thing as 'climate' science.

Leafsdude wrote:and the narrative of those people are definitely the louder one getting out to the public, based on the average acceptance of climate science in the general populous.

Science doesn't use consensus.

Leafsdude wrote:If it is a government conspiracy, it's one of the worst ones in the history of conspiracies.

Not by a long shot. You seem to have forgotten the costs associated with Marxism. The Church of Global Warming stems from the Church of Karl Marx.

Leafsdude wrote:

Into the Night wrote:I do not blame a lot of scientists for stating what they do, they don't get grant money unless they toe the government line.

This is complete BS. People like Eigil Friis-Christensen, Henrik Svensmark, Roy Spencer, Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas and so on, have all gotten government grants to publish papers that are skeptical of climate change. Seriously, read the acknowledgements on some of their papers. You'll find most thank government-funded schools and programs for their monetary support in publishing their papers, because government grants are not given based on published results.

Private grants, dude.

Leafsdude wrote:

Into the Night wrote:There are also a lot of deluded scientists, that don't realize they are basing their work on a circular argument. Many of these believe, like you, that global warming exists and simply go from there, never questioning the original argument.

Which circular argument, exactly?

The circular argument that the globe is warming because the globe is warming, or the climate is changing because the climate is changing.

Leafsdude wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Evolution theory has the same problem.

What problem is that?

It is also a circular argument.

Leafsdude wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Scientists are people, just like you and me. Like most people, they each have their own religion, political viewpoint, and get tripped up on chasing a field based on a circular argument.

That's why I don't trust scientists.

But you do. You just spent the previous portion of the post justifying scientists.

Leafsdude wrote:I trust the public, peer-reviewed papers published in respected journals and the data therein that has been replicated consistently showing a singular set of conclusions that encompass all of it.

Science isn't a journal, peer review, data, or the ability to print something. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It does not use consensus.

Leafsdude wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Between the government funding and the fact that scientists are people, you get a fair number of them that make the global warming claim, even when they don't want to.

They are given for previous results or for any study attempting to justify the government agenda.

Leafsdude wrote:

Into the Night wrote:However, fortunately, consensus has no place in science. All it takes is ONE falsification of a theory to blow it away completely. That only needs to come from ONE source. It does not take a consensus to destroy a theory.

Again, science is repeatable.

No, science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Leafsdude wrote:It doesn't need one source.

Theories only come from one source.

Leafsdude wrote:It needs to have at least two, and preferably more, with the same results.

Theories only come from one source.

Leafsdude wrote:Otherwise, how can you tell the difference between coincidental and legitimate results?

Theories are not results. Theories are explanatory arguments.

Leafsdude wrote:But yes, it only takes one set of data points that is confirmed to be accurate to prove climate science false.

There is no such thing as 'climate' science. There is no theory of 'climate' science. The 'greenhouse' effect model conflicts with the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Leafsdude wrote:However, it is also true that, after almost 150 years of data collecting, assuming that data point is ever going to be found becomes unreasonable.

What data? There is no data. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

Leafsdude wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Global Warming is not a scientific theory because there is no way to measure the temperature of the globe, so it is not falsifiable.

Oh, right, you're that guy. You do know the concept of concordant data, right? The fact is, numerous data sources are used to create a temperature record that all independently correlate, all with causal factors that explain how they can show climate data. The amount of things that had to go wrong for such significant correlations to occur is completely unreasonable to believe.

Wrong. This is a math problem. How many thermometers are used to measure the temperature of the Earth?

Leafsdude wrote:

Into the Night wrote:It is also not a theory because it changes other theories in science without describing how those other theories must be modified or destroyed to accommodate it.

Such as...?

The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Leafsdude wrote:

Into the Night wrote:BTW, conspiracies DO exist. Most often they run under the flag of some political organization.

Mmm, no, actually. Most conspiracies are between two people. Few involve more than a handful, and most of those are found out because people are notoriously bad at keeping secrets.

WRONG. See the size of any common religion.

Leafsdude wrote:PS. I now remember why I stopped posting here before. Absolutely none of this has anything to do with climate science.

There is no such thing as 'climate' science.

Leafsdude wrote:This is misdirection with philosophy of science crap that pretty much is based on rejecting basic concepts of rational skepticism all so that well-established scientific concepts and theories can be rejected out of hand, regardless of what is provided to support it.

Science does not use supporting evidence. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It only uses conflicting evidence.

Oh, right, you're that guy. You do know the concept of concordant data, right? The fact is, numerous data sources are used to create a temperature record that all independently correlate, all with causal factors that explain how they can show climate data. The amount of things that had to go wrong for such significant correlations to occur is completely unreasonable to believe.

But what sort accuracy do these proxy records bring to the calculations, must be some margin for error, +/- 10 degrees? Since our threat level, only a couple of degrees, so well under the margin of error. The causal chain is long, and mostly circumstantial, lot of 'IFs'. Just because something is possible, doesn't alway make it so. It's fine for talking about, but isn't hard data.

This comes down to calculating the margin of error. You are correct to suspect this.

The margin of error calculation is a required calculation of any statistical analysis. It is not calculated from the data, but from the possible range of data. For temperature that would be an observed temperature gradient (degrees per unit of distance). I have regularly observed temperature gradients as steep as 20 deg F per mile.

We simply don't have enough instruments to even begin a sensible statistical analysis. It's not even possible to build that many with our present number of manufacturers.

Both NASA and NOAA specify the number of thermometers they use in their 'data'. NASA uses the higher number of around 7500. Spread across the world uniformly, that means one thermometer to cover the entire state of Tennessee.

Oh, right, you're that guy. You do know the concept of concordant data, right? The fact is, numerous data sources are used to create a temperature record that all independently correlate, all with causal factors that explain how they can show climate data. The amount of things that had to go wrong for such significant correlations to occur is completely unreasonable to believe.

But what sort accuracy do these proxy records bring to the calculations, must be some margin for error, +/- 10 degrees? Since our threat level, only a couple of degrees, so well under the margin of error. The causal chain is long, and mostly circumstantial, lot of 'IFs'. Just because something is possible, doesn't alway make it so. It's fine for talking about, but isn't hard data.

This comes down to calculating the margin of error. You are correct to suspect this.

The margin of error calculation is a required calculation of any statistical analysis. It is not calculated from the data, but from the possible range of data. For temperature that would be an observed temperature gradient (degrees per unit of distance). I have regularly observed temperature gradients as steep as 20 deg F per mile.

We simply don't have enough instruments to even begin a sensible statistical analysis. It's not even possible to build that many with our present number of manufacturers.

Both NASA and NOAA specify the number of thermometers they use in their 'data'. NASA uses the higher number of around 7500. Spread across the world uniformly, that means one thermometer to cover the entire state of Tennessee.

In other words, they're guessing.

Temperature varies by time of day, seasonal as well. I was running the air conditioning a couple days ago, got the heat running right now, 48 degrees F. An average of any of the measurements doesn't mean much, since there is no consistent variance. Lately, are temperatures are about 15 degrees below our average for this time of year. Not 'Global Warming' in my area at all.

Winter storm knock out power for almost 200k customers, hope they got their electric cars charged, no telling when most of them will get power restored. Although, it's likely the folks who can afford those types of vehicles, probably get priority service, and won't have to wait for the storm to pass. And yes, there are priority circuits, least were I live, because I'm on one, which I share with City Hall, Fire and Rescue, and the police department, before they moved. My power is usually restored an hour or two after a hurricane, where a few streets over, might be a day or two...

Oh, right, you're that guy. You do know the concept of concordant data, right? The fact is, numerous data sources are used to create a temperature record that all independently correlate, all with causal factors that explain how they can show climate data. The amount of things that had to go wrong for such significant correlations to occur is completely unreasonable to believe.

But what sort accuracy do these proxy records bring to the calculations, must be some margin for error, +/- 10 degrees? Since our threat level, only a couple of degrees, so well under the margin of error. The causal chain is long, and mostly circumstantial, lot of 'IFs'. Just because something is possible, doesn't alway make it so. It's fine for talking about, but isn't hard data.

This comes down to calculating the margin of error. You are correct to suspect this.

The margin of error calculation is a required calculation of any statistical analysis. It is not calculated from the data, but from the possible range of data. For temperature that would be an observed temperature gradient (degrees per unit of distance). I have regularly observed temperature gradients as steep as 20 deg F per mile.

We simply don't have enough instruments to even begin a sensible statistical analysis. It's not even possible to build that many with our present number of manufacturers.

Both NASA and NOAA specify the number of thermometers they use in their 'data'. NASA uses the higher number of around 7500. Spread across the world uniformly, that means one thermometer to cover the entire state of Tennessee.

In other words, they're guessing.

Temperature varies by time of day, seasonal as well. I was running the air conditioning a couple days ago, got the heat running right now, 48 degrees F. An average of any of the measurements doesn't mean much, since there is no consistent variance. Lately, are temperatures are about 15 degrees below our average for this time of year. Not 'Global Warming' in my area at all.

Winter storm knock out power for almost 200k customers, hope they got their electric cars charged, no telling when most of them will get power restored. Although, it's likely the folks who can afford those types of vehicles, probably get priority service, and won't have to wait for the storm to pass. And yes, there are priority circuits, least were I live, because I'm on one, which I share with City Hall, Fire and Rescue, and the police department, before they moved. My power is usually restored an hour or two after a hurricane, where a few streets over, might be a day or two...

Yup. Storms move, the Earth spins, seasons change, etc. Time is a significant biasing factor. This means such a measurement must eliminate time. To do that readings must be taken simultaneously.

Distribution grouping is also a biasing factor. Most thermometers that do exist are in or near cities. They need to be accessible by road or ship so they can be serviced. Ten thermometers in a city, and none even a few miles away again produce useless averages. To eliminate this factor, thermometers must be uniformly distributed.

To bring the margin of error down to anything like an acceptable level, we are going to need far more thermometers than exist or are even practical to build.